I'm a moderate here - I believe we have to expect, and even encourage some
rulemaking in light of the things that have happened. 9/11 proved that civil
aviation has become a method of choice for terrorists, and a continuing flow
of information indicates they still concentrate on such methods. The
regrettable incident in Florida, too soon after 9/11, proved to the public
that security lapses can exist in General Aviation, and the general public has
only a vague understanding of the fact that the plane he stole was not similar
to the ones hijacked on 9/11 - and if we're to be honest, GA "could" be used
by terrorists to disperse insidious products over populations. So we should
expect some new rules, and come forth with proposals for security enhancements
of our own - it's the best protection against scapegoating by thick-headed
government agencies.

But fingerprinting? Who can pretend that such methods have any useful or
effective applications? If Muhammed Atta had been fingerprinted before 9/11
are we supposed to believe he wouldn't have boarded the plane? Did you all see
the pictures of those FBI agents "dusting" every piece of debris from the twin
towers for prints? Big job!

Fingerprinting has all the trappings and attributes of presumption of guilt,
and unless I'm missing something, offers little serious or useful application
in modern security enhancement. It really looks like clueless agencies,
spending large sums of tax funds, "pretending" to do something about security.

I hope somebody is dusting those golf clubs - might pick up some prints to
help with some fraud convictions down the road.

G Faris